↓ Skip to main content

Adaptive Decision Making in a Dynamic Environment: A Test of a Sequential Sampling Model of Relative Judgment

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Adaptive Decision Making in a Dynamic Environment: A Test of a Sequential Sampling Model of Relative Judgment
Published in
Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, January 2013
DOI 10.1037/a0034384
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anita Vuckovic, Peter J. Kwantes, Andrew Neal

Abstract

Research has identified a wide range of factors that influence performance in relative judgment tasks. However, the findings from this research have been inconsistent. Studies have varied with respect to the identification of causal variables and the perceptual and decision-making mechanisms underlying performance. Drawing on the ecological rationality approach, we present a theory of the judgment and decision-making processes involved in a relative judgment task that explains how people judge a stimulus and adapt their decision process to accommodate their own uncertainty associated with those judgments. Undergraduate participants performed a simulated air traffic control conflict detection task. Across two experiments, we systematically manipulated variables known to affect performance. In the first experiment, we manipulated the relative distances of aircraft to a common destination while holding aircraft speeds constant. In a follow-up experiment, we introduced a direct manipulation of relative speed. We then fit a sequential sampling model to the data, and used the best fitting parameters to infer the decision-making processes responsible for performance. Findings were consistent with the theory that people adapt to their own uncertainty by adjusting their criterion and the amount of time they take to collect evidence in order to make a more accurate decision. From a practical perspective, the paper demonstrates that one can use a sequential sampling model to understand performance in a dynamic environment, allowing one to make sense of and interpret complex patterns of empirical findings that would otherwise be difficult to interpret using standard statistical analyses.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 6%
India 1 2%
Unknown 50 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 26%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 13%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 12 22%
Unknown 8 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 44%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 15%
Engineering 5 9%
Computer Science 3 6%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 8 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 September 2016.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied
#431
of 723 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,611
of 288,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied
#15
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 723 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.7. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 288,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.